Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Michael wrote:
>> > I was talking about the "we", not the modified quote.
>> Indeed, but isn't the "we" part of the quote?
> Their use was not Royal, but rather anti-Royal.
Rather! I guess I'm not a collection of famous dead Americans, so
maybe my "we" came across as Roy
Michael wrote:
> I was talking about the "we", not the modified quote.
Indeed, but isn't the "we" part of the quote?
Their use was not Royal, but rather anti-Royal.
-G.
Michael Slone wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's a quote: founding fathers' shtick even. Certainly, nothing I'd
>> claim as my own...
> I was talking about the "we", not the modified quote.
Indeed, but isn't the "we" part of the quote?
Michael.
On 2/20/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's a quote: founding fathers' shtick even. Certainly, nothing I'd
claim as my own...
I was talking about the "we", not the modified quote.
--
Michael Slone
Michael Slone wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We
>
> That's Wes's shtick. Get your own!
It's a quote: founding fathers' shtick even. Certainly, nothing I'd
claim as my own...
Michael.
On 2/20/07, Michael Norrish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We
That's Wes's shtick. Get your own!
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
Founder, Agorans for Shtick Differentiation
6 matches
Mail list logo